Dahlstrom v. Biden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE

RAJU A.T. DAHLSTROM, Case No. C24-641-RSM Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO SET A SINGLE DEADLINE v. TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT JOSEPH ROBINETTE BIDEN, JR., in his official capacity as President of the United States of America; et al., Defendants.

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Set a Single Deadline to Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Dkt. #56. Plaintiff has filed a Response, agreeing to Defendants’ Motion “on a very limited basis [grant] defendants’ motion[.]” Dkt. #59 at 4.

Defendants request this extension and single date due to the number of federal defendants involved (fourteen), ongoing requests for individual representation by the Department of Justice, and to make sure all defendants have been properly served. Dkt. #56 at 2.

“A motion for relief from a deadline should, whenever possible, be filed sufficiently in advance of the deadline to allow the court to rule on the motion prior to the deadline,” LCR 7(j), and a motion for relief should be granted where “good cause” exists. See Allstate Indem. Co. v. Lindquist, No. C20-1508JLR, 2022 WL 1443676, at *2 (W.D. Wash. May 6, 2022). When seeking an extension, the good cause standard primarily considers the diligence of the party seeking the extension. Id. The Court finds that Defendants have provided good cause for the Court to grant the Motion. Moreover, Plaintiff agreed to the requested date, leaving Defendants’ Motion unopposed. Dkt. #59 at 4. Accordingly, having considered the above Motion, the relevant briefings, and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that Defendants’ Motion to Set a Single Deadline to Respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint, Dkt. #56, is GRANTED.

Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint on or before September 4, 2024.

DATED this 17th day of July, 2024.

12 A RICARDO S. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE